I'll never forget the day my wife decided to have an "elective abortion".

[11 Bravo]

OK, I guess that technically she didn't decide, I did. You see, she was unconscious at the time. I've posted about this before, but the current debate about health care reform has brought out a host of individuals who claim that abortion is "elective" surgery, so I thought I would re-visit it.
Here's how the love of my life "elected" to have an abortion.
One night after dinner, my sweetheart went to the toilet. I still thank God that I didn't head downstairs to watch football. After a while I knocked on the door (at that time we were living in a one-bathroom townhouse), and received no answer. Eventually, I went in, and found my bride lying on the bathroom floor in a puddle of blood. We found out at the hospital that the child we were trying to have had been conceived as an ectopic pregnancy. We hadn't even know she was pregnant. A therapeutic abortion and removal of her right fallopian tube saved her life, while reducing by half our chance to have the children we so devoutly hoped for. The doctor told me that had we arrived thirty minutes later she might have bled to death.
So fuck you, Mr. Stupak. Fuck you Bill O'Reilly. Fuck every member of Congress who, had they been able, would have signed my wife's death warrant. I hope you never have to pick up the dead weight of a loved one, carry them out to the car, lay them down in the driveway so you can open the car door, and then strap your unconscious and hemorrhaging spouse into a seat. But if you do, I hope you learn from the experience.

(By the way, my wife and I have now have two amazing sons, ages 13 and 16, and they can't wait to be old enough to vote for a Democratic candidate.)

[LisaM]

1. Bravo, indeed

and I think you should call Senator Nelson's office and tell him your story.

[bobbolink]

2. Beautiful story. Thank you.

Rec'd, because of the unrec brigade.

[katandmoon]

3. 10,000 K&R's! (I wish)

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. Thank you for telling us this terrifying story.

I am so glad you saved her life, and the lives of your sons...

Abortions can be elective, but obviously, not all of them...

K&R

[tonysam]

5. That's a medically necessary abortion, which would not be banned under

Stupak. That's not the same thing at all as having an elective abortion. I think you know that.

"Therapeutic" abortion isn't "elective" abortion, or "abortion on demand."

[bobbolink]

9. Its all the same to the RW, and I think you know *that*.

They insist on using the term "partial birth abortion", even though they KNOW that it is almost ALWAYS a matter of the life of the mother.

They simply don't care.

[shadesofgray]

16. Exactly. The Catholic Church does NOT permit abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.

And Nelson and other senators are taking their orders from the Catholic church.

[Ms. Toad]

32. That is not really correct

In the event of an ectopic pregnancy, the Catholic church permits the removal of the fallopian tube (or a section thereof containing the embryo). The intended purpose is to save the life of the mother; the unintended consequence of that act is the death of the fetus. This is the procedure the OP had.

(The Catholic church does not permit an alternate treatment which is administering medication to kill the developing embryo.)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist_c1.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm
http://www.epigee.org/guide/catholicism.html

As to Stupak - the amendment is bad. I hope it is removed from the House Bill, and the proposed amendment defeated in the Senate.

BUT as bad as the amendment is, it would permit federally subsidized insurance policies to cover both common methods of treating ectopic pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies are life threatening The OP was told that at the hospital, and no doctor who got his license anywhere other than a crackerjack box would argue with that assessment.

The Stupak amendment says:

"No funds . . . may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed. . ."

In other words, funds are permitted to be used for abortions because an ectopic pregnancy places the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

[SharonAnn]

33. They certainly used to permit it. My mother had one after 5 children

and then went on to have another 3. There was no question that it was an ectopic pregnancy and would've killed her. She was bleeding internally so she had already lost a lot of blood before anyone realized there was a serious problem.

I'm no longer a practicing Roman Catholic but I was raised in that religion and know its rules pretty well.

Ectopic pregnancies are certainly a case for an abortion that "saves the life of the mother" and also realize, that embryo was already dead or dying.

[Shell Beau]

223. Obviously the embryo can not develop in the tube, so I am perplexed

as to why the Catholic church would rather the tube be removed instead of what is causing the tube to swell, bleed, and possibly rupture. There is nothing in the tube to sustain the life of an embryo. And the embryo can't be moved to the uterus. I had the methotrexate shot twice. One for each of my ectopics. It destroyed the embryo. My doctor is conservative about removing tubes. He doesn't want to remove the tube (of a woman trying to get pregnant) if the tube is not damaged. My tube was not damaged after my first ectopic. It was damaged after my second one though, and then it was removed. But it was never removed during the times I was pregnant with my ectopics.

And let me also add that when you are in that situation, and it is a very scary situation, the last thing I was thinking about was what my church would think. I was more concerned with my health and well being. And removing a tube calls for surgery which comes with plenty of risk. The shot I got also came with risk, but much much less than a surgery.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. That's not correct.

[Contrary1]

53. Delete. Wrong place.

[DesertFlower]

50. many years ago i had emergency surgery

for what my doc thought was an ectopic pregnancy. turned out it was just a bad infection in my tube and ovary. both were removed.

[defendandprotect]

58. RCC has a long history of letting women die .... "to save the child" . . .

[defendandprotect]

59. Some time ago, we had a story here at DU where a woman suffering a miscarriage ...

was turned away from one of the hospitals by an official because he was concerned

that someone might think the hospital was participating in performing an abortion!!!

What crap like the religious Holy Rollers do is to confuse the public -- and to

create new impasses for women -- and if it endangers the lives of women, they don't care!

[crazyjoe]

73. that is just completely false. sorry

we can support a womans right to choose, without making shit up

[shadesofgray]

76. Then perhaps you should take it up with Catholics United for The Faith

instead of calling me a liar.

Becase YOU are the one making shit up!

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the lives of both the mother and child are placed at risk. The moral teachings of the Church call for medical treatment that respects the lives of both. Most recently, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reiterated these principles:

· In the case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.<2>

· Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.<3>

On one hand, there can be no direct attack on the child (direct abortion) to save the life of the mother. On the other hand, the life of the mother is equally valuable and she must receive appropriate treatment. It might be that the only available remedy saves the life of the mother but, while not a direct abortion, brings about the unintended effect of the death of the child. Morally speaking, in saving the life of the mother, the Church accepts that the child might be lost.

http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57

Seems pretty clear to me the Catholic church does NOT permit ABORTION in the case of ectopic pregnancies if that is the only "treatment" that will ssve the woman. They split hairs and permit other procedures - as long as those procedures don't constitute ABORTION.

And perhaps YOU would like to take your chances in a Catholic hospital. In which case, good luck! I, however, would not.

[crazyjoe]

89. actually , i was referring to this statement

"So fuck you, Mr. Stupak. Fuck you Bill O'Reilly. Fuck every member of Congress who, had they been able, would have signed my wife's death warrant"

this is a gross exaggeration, (lie), and it doesn't help the cause. I understand the passion people have for abortion rights, but if you try to sway
someone who is "on the fence" with that statement, you fail.
the catholic church may have an "opinion", but they do not have the power to dictate the health decisions of your wife or anyone else, unless that person wants to follow the laws of the catholic church over a doctors advice or common sense for that matter. If they are that weak minded to believe in the almighty invisible god that lives up in the clouds, and always needs money, they probably make bad decisions about there lives all the time.
And if you actually believe that it's possible the United States congress and president will ever pass a law outlawing abortions in the case of ectopic pregnancy's, where the mothers life is in "mortal danger", you should really consider taking a "time out".

[defendandprotect]

192. Catholic Church without doubt let women die in days gone by to "save the child" . . .

the catholic church may have an "opinion", but they do not have the power to dictate the health decisions of your wife or anyone else

The point is that they are trying to control reproductive decisions in America by controlling

our government -- and so far they've succeeded in getting our tax dollars poured into their

"faith-based" religious organizations, most of which are Catholic!


This is a male-supremacist cult with a long history of abuse of women --

whose full personhood they still do not acknowledge!!

[crazyjoe]

251. "This is a male-supremacist cult with a long history of abuse of women"

I absolutely agree with that statement, just look at the way they treat nuns as compared to priests.

"and so far they've succeeded in getting our tax dollars poured into their
"faith-based" religious organizations, most of which are Catholic!"

you mean like those hideous organizations that feed, house, and cloth the poor? those bastards!!

we are not discussing "days gone by", but if a woman dies in this country because the catholic church says abortion is wrong, it's the womans own fault for believing such bullshit.

[defendandprotect]

255. The RCC is being investigated for using our tax dollars to pay off their pedophile lawsuits . . .

And wasn't it rather convenient of Bush to come up with those tax dollars just when

the RCC really needed them -- and just when he might have wanted to forestall the Vatican

from being too noisy about his wars???

Trust that answers this . . . ???

"and so far they've succeeded in getting our tax dollars poured into their
"faith-based" religious organizations, most of which are Catholic!"

you mean like those hideous organizations that feed, house, and cloth the poor? those bastards!!

We should end tax exempt status of all churches -- except for their church and surrounding

property and their actual soup kitchens!!

As for this . . .
we are not discussing "days gone by", but if a woman dies in this country because the catholic church says abortion is wrong, it's the womans own fault for believing such bullshit.

The problem isn't what the RCC says about abortion . . .
the problem is their "Pro-lifers" murdering doctors and shutting down clinics --

Unfortunately, we don't need to think of "days gone by" to see death --
Becky Bell was, of course, a victim of parental laws which caused her to seek an illegal abortion.
For the right wing and the RCC, control of females is essential --
Protecting their lives is not one of their priorities --
Not so long ago, Catholic hospitals were letting women die in order to "save the infant" -- !!!

Those were not "days gone by" -- they were quite recent.

I think Americans have to wake up to reality about organized patriarchal religions and especially
the Vatican/RCC --

They have no moral standing --
And, their historic sexual abuse of children and members is not something that begins simply
50 years or so ago -- certainly NOT according to the Italians who should know!!

In the case of Americans now subsidizing "faith based" religions, we are strengthening our enemies.



I'm a recovering Catholic, btw --

[defendandprotect]

194. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church is seeking to deny women the right to "self-defense" ...

IF the assault is by a fetus -- !!!

This is another gem which distorts today's debate and the past ...

respects the lives of both.

In fact, Catholic Hospitals were notorious for "saving the child" and letting the

mother die!

Obviously, arguing that a fetus or a fertilized egg is the equal of a living woman

isn't something that anyone buys . . . including Catholic women who have as many

abortions as any other women!!

It's a losing argument from every angle and that's why their "Pro-life-assassins" resort

to MURDER OF DOCTORS ...

[Contrary1]

235. My ectopic pregnancy was surgically treated at a Catholic hospital. n/t

[whopis01]

92. That is incorrect. In the Humanae Vitae encyclical, Pope Paul VI said the opposite.

So long as the intent of the medical procedure is not to be an impediment to procreation, it is allowed.

Basically, they are against abortion if the purpose is to prevent pregnancy. If the purpose is to save the mother's life and the termination of the pregnancy is a foreseeable but unavoidable outcome, then it is approved by the church.

[AnnieBW]

114. Yeah, but did B16 or JP2 countermand that?

The question is not what the Catholic doctrine says, but how it is interpreted by Stupak, Pitts, and the Family. It's not her immortal soul that you should be worried about - it's whether the procedure is covered under insurance.

[MH1]

150. Having to even be concerned about whether it is covered is OBSCENE

I am so tired of the stupidity of the "embryo = person" crowd.

[Gnome Sane]

101. BUT THEY'RE GOOD TO GO W/ THE HOMOSEXUAL RAPE

OF YOUNGSTERS. Man, I just love this Christianity thingy. So...uuhhh, piously nauseating.

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[11 Bravo]

21. Head on down to the nearest Catholic church or hospital. Ask them for their opinion ...

vis-a-vis ectopic pregnancies and abortion. Then ask where Stupak wants to take us.

[Jamastiene]

24. Conjecture

It all depends on the local beliefs of the area. In my area, that actually might be considered elective abortion.

It all depends on the beliefs and the demographics of an area. I live in a state that helped hide Eric Rudolph after he killed a security officer and maimed a nurse over the abortion issue.

No matter how the law would define "elective," many areas would pervert the law to suit their local norms. I know this because in other areas, it is already done here. They would just do the same thing with this.

[JetCityLiberal]

35. You are anti abortion no matter what just like the right wing

and you have the right wing anti abortion crap posts down pat.

Abortion is a necessary medical procedure right wing crap anti life liars.

Pro life my ass. Same fetus fetish crap. Transparent crap posts.

Paul

[Control-Z]

65. You really need to educate yourself.

There are a bunch of crazy, right wing, religious fuckwads who are anti-birth control, anti-choice, anti-women...They believe that ectopic pregnancies should be left to run their course - which ALWAYS means death to both the woman and the fetus. And yes, they consider an ectopic procedure to be elective.


Frankly, imo, every abortion is therapeutic. When a woman chooses abortion because she doesn't feel capable of mothering a child or she can't afford to, it is a therapeutic decision on some level for her, and for most women, a compassionate one as well.

[peacetalksforall]

93. Radicals don't look a the fine points, sorry to say.

Any word that starts with a b o r is fodder for derision in the name of Jesus. As if they had the humility to not speak Jesus's mind. As if they could ever get it through their heads that much of the Bible was written by mere men to have control over the people by mere women and men. And now with religious psychopaths interpreting the Bible their way, clarity of logic fails.

Those fanatics who are quick to fogive adultry, addiction, lust, corporate crimes, political crimes, military crimes in people acceptable to them, including themselves - these people have absolutely zero-zero tolerance for abortion and all the sins of people who are unacceptable which involves foreigners, homosexuals, liberals, and many women.

When the line crosses their own version of morality - they don't make ANY distintions in their attacks. They don't even allow healing science. How are they going to make a distinction on 'elective' when they only believe in Beck, Limbaugh, Robertson, Phelps, their elders?

They would deride lawyers who try to make a distinction and call it a liberal conspiracy to get around the law, even if one of their own knew and followed the law.

[Bette Noir]

95. You're wrong.

"Therapeutic abortion" means it was caused medically, whether "on demand" or "medically necessary." "Spontaneous abortion" is the medical term for a miscarriage.

[beyurslf]

6. Thank you for sharing.

Unfortunately, some will never learn no matter how many stories they hear. They can never imagine those shoes on their feet.

[slackmaster]

7. That was not an elective abortion

It was a theraputic abortion.

[TwilightGardener]

38. I don't think it's an abortion at all. Not a viable embryo, at least for very long.

Will never come to term.

[defendandprotect]

60. For decades women had to carry around DEAD fetuses because abortion wasn't

permitted!!!

And, where people have turned their brains over to middle men to "god" you never

know what crap will be going on -- especially if women and reproduction are involved!!!

[KakistocracyHater]

233. stone fetuses! Yeah I saw that on Discovery or 1 of those channels

http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/04/1819649.aspx
92 year-old woman with 60 year old stone fetus
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,891848,00.html
67 year woman had calcified baby for 37 years.

Some of these stone fetuses have fingernails, fingerprints, eyelashes.....

Doesn't make them more important than a woman, doesn't mean they're alive-these are calcified because somehow they formed outside the uterus.

Anyway, I adhere to the "first breath" idea that ONLY after a baby takes their first breath, like God breathing a soul into Adam. I think that it is likely that if a kid dies, the next birth may well be the same soul. What ever happened to this belief?

As close as the 19th century it was normal for every mother to have at least 1 child die; there are tintypes & old photos of dead children, even Queen Victoria had 1 or 2 of her 7 or so children die. Old cemeteries are a testament to the death & birthrates of 19th century America. Cholera, typhoid, tb......as well as child labor, no real rights of children, women's testimony in court not taken seriously, etc.

I point this out because another argument by the Right, is that timing the birth of children & spacing the births apart as well as choosing how many ultimately to give birth to, means children are not valued. This is bs. I say this because in Saudi Arabia-according to a book the "princess diaries"(or some such) girl children are not as valued & they are killed for what appears to me as trifling reasons. Then there is the doc "born into brothels", & an old Dateline story about 'subway children' abandoned in Russia......seems to me where contraceptives are not used children have less value, not more.

[slackmaster]

83. I agree with you completely

:hi:

[pipi_k]

8. OMG this gave me chills..

I can just imagine how thankful you are not to have gone to watch TV...


geez, I can't get those images out of my mind....

[Sparkly]

10. K&R but to be clear...

When the life of a woman is at risk, abortions are legal and covered throughout a pregnancy.

However, the rightwing government-intrusion zealots do make a distinction between a woman's "life" and a woman's "health." So, for example, if your wife were "merely" risking her fertility, physical debilitation or mental illness, the rightwing nutjobs would not allow her to have the abortion.

[Alameda]

12. and would the decision be made in time to save her life?

[Ms. Toad]

105. Yes. Ectopic pregnancies in the fallopian tubes

are always life-threatening.

If a condition is certified by a doctor to be life threatening, an abortion to resolve that condition may be paid for by federal funds or covered by insurance purchased with federal funds. No reputable doctor would categorize an ectopic pregnancy in the fallopian tube as anything other than life threatening.

[humbled_opinion]

104. You make and extremely valid point

Now regarding the Coming government option and its eventual morph into a single payer universal healthcare system.

Just imagine what President Palin will do with that kind of power and control over our healthcare.

Cure all the social ills that the fundies have been trying to do for years, You Betcha !....

We need to rething giving away our freedom on Healthcare.

[rd_kent]

11. How is that "elective"?

[mopinko]

31. i think that is the point.

"elective" abortions are more like "elective" root canals than boob jobs.

[rd_kent]

39. This one was not, for sure

Sounds like there was nothing elective about it. But many abortions ARE just as elective as bob jobs.

[Ishka Kibble]

51. Your post makes no sense.

I'm sure it's a typo, and that you meant "boob" jobs, but to equate an abortion with a breast implant procedure is about as stupid a comparison as I've seen. Written out of complete ignorance, betraying a kind of contempt for women and an ignorance of the strain and stress that pregnancy places on a woman's body.

Your comment - "... many abortions ARE just as elective as bob (sic) jobs" - is drawn from your personal research? How many women did you interview? What was your base? Exactly what do you mean by "many," a term that is statistically meaningless.

Meaningless just like your assertion that "many abortions ARE ... elective." Having a choice to have an infected part of your body treated is as "elective" as choosing to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of the reasons for the termination.

Rightwingers are notorious - watch Pat Buchanan sometime, if you can, with the sound ON - for coming up with "statistics" that are pulled out of their very tight asses and have no basis in reality. Your comment about "bob jobs" is just as meaningless and mean-spirited.

Tell you what - if you don't approve of abortions unless there's the threat of immediate death, don't have one. And make sure you don't permit any female in your life to have one, either. Be a man and live the courage of your convictions, why don't you?

Assuming, of course, that you are a man.

[rd_kent]

86. First of all,you should read the post I was responding to.

THAT is where the boob job analogy came from.

And secondly, I feel a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy whenever she feels like it. I am 100% pro choice.

If you would turn down your poutrage meter a bit, you might see the point I was trying to make, that in that in this case, the story told by the OP was NOT an elective procedure, it was a serious medical condition that required immediate medical attention. Most abortions on the other hand, the kind where a woman decides that for whatever reason(other than because it has become a serious medical condition), that she does not want to have a baby, IS an elective procedure, as in not required, its a CHOICE. There is a difference. I support a womans right to decide what is best for herself, but not ALL abortions are MEDICALLY NECESSARY. Thats my point

Tell you what - if you don't approve of abortions unless there's the threat of immediate death, don't have one. And make sure you don't permit any female in your life to have one, either. Be a man and live the courage of your convictions, why don't you?
I will tell YOU what - Who the fuck are YOU to tell me anything and to judge ME or to know what MY convictions are. You don't know me, you don't know what my position on anything is. In this case, you are totally wrong about me and "my convictions" and earn a big fat FAIL. I am as entitled to my opinion as you are, and in this case, my argument is sound. By your logic, if no abortion is elective, then the term "pro-choice" is an oxymoron, because according to you, there IS no choice, its ALL an "infected part of the body".

And your subtle attempt to compare me to rightwing fundie wingnuts earns you a big GO FUCK YOURSELF.


Welcome to DU.

[BrklynLiberal]

13. Cannot recommend enough!!!!!

Are people posting here without even reading your post????

Is English not their first language?

I think that there must be something happening to the drinking water on DU...:silly: :crazy:

An abortion is NEVER "elective"!!!!!

[slackmaster]

15. If an abortion is never "elective"

Then it would be syntactically inconsistent to refer to it as a "choice".

[Sparkly]

17. Yup.

:thumbsup: They're all "elective" in that sense.

[BrklynLiberal]

18. Semantics?

Choice consists of the mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple
options and choosing one of them for action.

Elective has the implication of being non-essential, which is NOT true for "choice".


When and if a woman chooses to have an abortion, to her, at that moment, for whatever reason, IT IS ESSENTIAL.

[rd_kent]

42. I could not disagree more.

When and if a woman chooses to have an abortion, to her, at that moment, for whatever reason, IT IS ESSENTIAL. Maybe to the woman it is, but not necessarily MEDICALLY ESSENTIAL. I think THATS the point.

[defendandprotect]

198. "CHOICE" also highlights the individual decisions made by each and every woman . . .

including Catholic women who have just as many abortions as any other women !!!

Great response ... !!!

'ESSENTIAL' -- love it!!!

:)

[11 Bravo]

22. I guess you're right. If those fucking brood sows would either quietly reproduce or die ...

then you wouldn't have to agonize over the semantics of the issue.

[TCJ70]

34. Never and always are so definite...

...abortion is sometimes elective and sometimes it isn't. In your case, it wasn't. This isn't really that hard of a concept to grasp.

[defendandprotect]

61. Presume, had she realized a day before or hours before that something was wrong . . .

it would have been "elective" . . . Right --

If right wing bullies can turn late term abortions into "partial birth abortions" ...

they can probably distort this into something else, as well --

[ImOnlySleeping]

71. Compare to: Appendectomy

They way the issue is framed, it would be like leaving an appendix in until it burst. You know there's a major problem, but the pain from appendicitis isn't life threatening, just the sepsis from it bursting.

[rd_kent]

88. No, its not

She DIDNT know there was a problem, as most that have appendectomies dont know there was a problem. The appendectomy IS a good analogy, though.

[defendandprotect]

177. This woman is but one example; other women do KNOW there is a problem . . .

it doesn't always happen the same way --

[rd_kent]

196. What does that have to do with this topic?

[defendandprotect]

176. True . . . and that's pretty much where the male-supremacist cult is in denying "HEALTH" ...

to women whether mental or physical health --

Finally, this all hinges on taking the right to "self-defense" from women --

if the assault is by a fetus.

[rd_kent]

87. But that did not happen, so your presumption is wrong.

[defendandprotect]

178. Your premise is inane: Any abortion in Canada is a "medical procedure" . . .

you can make it elective or therapeutic which you are obviously doing to try to

distort "CHOICE" --

but the fact remains it is a medical procedure and should be covered -- as Canada

covers it and as other nations cover it.

[rd_kent]

199. Keep stuffing that strawman, you are doing great!

No one, especially me, is saying that it is NOT a medical procedure. The point is, is that most abortions are done by CHOICE, not medical necessity. IOW, an ELECTIVE procedure.

[Ms. Toad]

106. No. Regardless of how far along she was

when she realized something was wrong, the tubal ectopic pregnancy was life threatening. The only medical options (short of just leaving her to die) result in the death of the fetus - either by injection of methotrexate or by surgically removing the fallopian tube (or part of it). Both result in the death of the fetus - so both are abortions.

The timing of her knowledge of her condition doesn't change the nature of the required treatment (an abortion) - it just affects whether you roll her directly into surgery or schedule the procedure.

[defendandprotect]

179. I agree with you --

I was referring to the term "elective," however . . .

and it's deceptive use here --

[TCJ70]

116. No.

If she knew something was wrong and a doctor says, "We ned to terminate your pregnancy." it is really no longer elective. Either way, this was not a viable pregnancy anyway.

[defendandprotect]

180. That's what most of us would say . . . proving that "elective" is being used as a political term . .

to deceive --

Scheduled C-sections are "elective" --

And we then come full circle back to the reality that EVERY abortion in Canada is

covered and is termed a "medical procedure."

[TCJ70]

248. What are you talking about?

I don't see the deceit in saying that sometimes abortions are elective. It happens...it's just reality.

[Shell Beau]

225. No, because I caught my two ectopics before they ruptured, and they

were considered medically necessary for my life to be saved.

[rd_kent]

43. Perhaps you could use a bit more hyperbole......

That was not over the top enough....

[11 Bravo]

46. Perhaps you could hoist your wife, not sure if she's going to live...

and rush her to the hospital. Or is that too over the top for you to deal with?

[rd_kent]

47. Nope, not at all...

And you have my deepest sympathies for you and your wife for having to go through that ordeal.....


But your story, while very sad, is NOT indicative of most abortions, which ARE a choice, which they should be. IOW, they are an ELECTIVE procedure.

[defendandprotect]

63. Had this woman realized hours earlier that there was a problem it would have been...

an "Elective" procedure . . . to save her life and health -- !!

[rd_kent]

79. Whats your point?

What would've, could've or should've is irrelevant. In this particular case, it was NOT elective.

[defendandprotect]

174. The point, as you well understand, is that "elective" is an effort to deceive and confuse . . .

and who might be trying to do that?

Would it be our "Pro-life" murderers?

Would it be our priest sexual abusers of children and masters of cover up?

Would it be a male supremacist church which wants to regain control over women's bodies
and reproduction?

[defendandprotect]

62. And we're supposed to believe that you're here to honestly discuss this issue????

Rather, you're questionably low key about someone almost losing their wife -- !!!

[rd_kent]

78. SO, because my emotional response was not to your liking, I am not to be taken seriously?

Thats just asinine. Who are you to decide how much emotion should be shown? My other posts are full of sympathy and condolences, so GFY.

[fascisthunter]

99. this is a case where one's righteous indignation toward an issue

makes that person look uncaring, or un-empathetic toward life itself.

That would be you, believe it or not. It's the problem with most folks who argue against abortion itself, always judging those who go through the process without knowing all the facts, yet so married to their disdain of the subject matter that they unintentionally support a possible death sentence of the aborter. That renders any argument that those against abortion are concerned for life itself, as untrue.

[rd_kent]

103. What are you on about?

Who is arguing against abortion? Certainly not me. Who is judging? Certainly not me. You seem to have me confused with someone else.

[defendandprotect]

181. If what the poster said to you isn't clear to you . . .

then it is only because you are choosing NOT to understand --

[rd_kent]

202. Why are you stalking me? Do I need to report you?

[defendandprotect]

175. It is similiar to the fanaticism about fetal life . . . while ignoring the life of the female ...

Same thing --

It is impossible not to notice that concern for the female is nowhere to be seen in

your post --

And, yes, I have the right to judge your debate -- so take your own advice ... "GFY."

[rd_kent]

201. Instead of stalking my posts

you try reading them. I have been sympathetic to the OP several times, so piss off.

[defendandprotect]

216. When you REPLY to someone's post . . . they reply to you .. that's how it works . . .however...

given your behavior here, you're on ignore --

And, I'm asking you politely to STOP responding to my posts --

[slackmaster]

85. I've donated more than $1,000 to Planned Parenthood over the last 25 years

That and the American Red Cross account for most of my charitable contributions during my life.

Your straw man sicktitates me.

[fascisthunter]

96. kaboom

thank you...

[Doctor_J]

74. Snark. I guess getting a ruptured appendix removed is a choice then too

Gawd, you have your taking points down pat.

[slackmaster]

82. No, that is not a choice unless you consider slow, painful death to be a viable alternative

Elective procedures are ones that a patient chooses in order to improve or maintain quality of life, not life itself.

[defendandprotect]

183. Broken leg, as well -- Meanwhile, Canada covers ALL abortions as "medical procedures" ...

[lapislzi]

90. Ectopic pregnancy is not viable. Period.

The embryo--for it rarely progresses beyond the blastocyst stage--dies, and then you die. I have never heard of a case of an ectopic pregnancy being brought to term. A fallopian tube is not a uterus and cannot function as such. The only remedy for the condition is abortion.

[slackmaster]

91. Of course not

But many abortions are.

[Shell Beau]

226. Correct. I still wonder why the embryo can't be moved to the uterus.

With all the advances we have today, it seems like it would be possible. Nope, not at all. Wish it were though because then I would have 3 children instead of 1. And I'd be done!!!!

[rd_kent]

41. What do you mean?

MOST abortion ARE elective, done by CHOICE by the woman, NOT because of medical reasons. Your assertion that abortions are NEVER elective is just plain wrong.

[Kerrytravelers]

14. What a powerful OP. Thank you for sharing this personal story with us at DU.

And it is so good to hear that your are raising two boys who also respect women and their reproductive rights.

Highly recommended.

[zbdent]

19. Repugs never mention ectopic pregnancies ...

and yet, they go on and on about how (allegedly) nobody can have a pregnancy which threatens the life of the mother (and thus the fetus) ...

[Bigmack]

20. My extended family had a late-term...

abortion.

The kids agonized over it for days. Finally... at 25 weeks, they terminated.

The fetus would not have lived more than a few minutes if carried to term.

A big "Fuck You" to anybody who disagrees with the hardest decision they would ever make.

[AllyCat]

28. I took care of a woman a month or so ago who was had just had her first living baby

After a number of miscarriages, she had to "electively abort" a baby that was ancephalic (no brain, covering of brain, skull, or scalp to cover it). Those babies DO NOT survive. She decided to terminate the pregnancy rather than deal with carrying to term a baby that would not survive more than a few hours after delivery. They were older and wanted to try again. And had a beautiful healthy little boy.

What an agonizing decision that must be for any family to make. And I'm sick of all the people who then try to put a guilt trip on them for their decision. We who are not in their shoes have no frickin' clue what it's like. I'm sick of people saying there is never a reason and that all abortion is elective. I join you in the "fuck you" chorus.

[defendandprotect]

64. Well when "morality" speaks from the top of the RCC . . .

everyone listens . . . ????

Thank you for letting us know something more of these difficult decisions!

[Vattel]

249. Maybe I'm being insensitive,

but why would anyone agonize over a decision to abort an ancephalic baby? It's not like the "baby" would be better-off not being aborted.

[AllyCat]

254. It was agonizing for her and her husband. For most it is a very sad thing to do

and most are hoping that some test will prove to be wrong, or a miracle will happen. We had one fundamentalist family whose baby had died in utero at about 38 or 39 weeks. The OB wanted them to induce and delivery the demised baby so the mother would not get sick. They refused, the father praying and saying God told him a miracle would happen if they waited 3 days. The mother did indeed go into labor and delivered an obviously long-dead baby. Then they had to explain to the family and older siblings. It was horrible for them and the staff. But they wanted that baby so badly, they were willing to continue to hope beyond all reasonable odds.

[DesertRat]

23. That's a frightening story with a happy ending

But it wasn't an "elective abortion". It was a therapeutic surgery to save the mother life.

[Stinky The Clown]

25. ......

K & R

[mzmolly]

26. Oh my, I'm so sorry Bravo 11. But, I'm thankful that you had a "choice"

in the matter of saving the life of your wife.

[AllyCat]

27. I remember your story from an earlier post and I mention this to people

who say that there are "few abortions necessary to save the life of the mother". A common occurrence at my hospital is when a woman comes to the L/D unit and has severe pre-eclampsia at 23 weeks and has to "electively abort" her baby to save her own life...and the people who WORK there saying that babies survive from 23 weeks all the time. I also work in the NICU and I know that is NOT true, not to mention the fact that the mother WILL DIE if we don't do something. That something is delivery of the baby, despite the odds of survival for the very premature babe. The ones who do survive have serious complications that alter their lives. I mention your story to these people. They are usually speechless. And, as can be expected, many are still just fuckin' clueless.

Congratulations on your wonderful family. Thank you for sharing your story.

[VOX]

29. A horrible and triumphant account, 11 Bravo. Wish I could rec 100 times.

I stand with you all the way on this issue, as does my wife. We haven't been tested as you two have, but we know too well the deadly -- and live-giving -- realities.

[Odin2005]

30. K&R

[snake in the grass]

36. The ignorance on this subject, even among so-called progressives, is...

...very sad. I'm happy that things turned out for you and your family.

[defendandprotect]

184. Well, look what they managed to do with "partial birth abortion" . . . !!!

Yet, any family that encounters such a threat to the life of the mother, aunt, sister,

daughter, whatever well understands the seriousness and need for late term abortions.

Converting a late term abortion into "partial birth abortion" is PARTIAL TRUTH ABORTION.

[snake in the grass]

dupe

[snake in the grass]

37. dupe

[demigoddess]

40. bravo

......

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. Not an abortion of any kind. Fetus was never viable. Glad she made it through, lots of women don't

[katkat]

48. And voting for Democratic candidate will get you what? Nothing. n/t

[Liberty Belle]

49. 1 in every 50-100 pregnancies are ectopic (tubal). This is NOT rare!

Those figures are from the Bush administration so clearly are not inflated.

A friend of mine nearly died from the same thing. When the tube bursts, it can also leave the woman sterile or with peritonitis, a massive infection of the abdominal cavity.

a tubal pregnancy can't be carried to term. The "baby" is doomed from day one. The only option is do you save the mother or not.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. That's why an ectopic pregnancy wouldn't be considered "elective" or an abortion.

[defendandprotect]

185. "Elective" simply refers to the NON-EMERGENCY status ....

if you can make an appointment to get your broken leg fixed . . . it's elective --

same with appendix . . .

and even C-sections are "elective" ....

However, Canada covers ALL abortions and all are "medical procedures" ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

197. That certainly isn't what it means in the United States.

[defendandprotect]

212. Essentially, not what the Catholic Bishops want it to mean . . .

They also well know that Americans quite well understand the NECESSITY

of abortion in matters of rape and incest --

And in fact, Catholics want abortion covered in a government health care plan --

"whenever a woman and her doctor decide it is appropriate" by a majority of 53% --

Catholics also want contraception covered --

and abortions which are necessary due to rape and incest --

or when the pregnancy poses health risks to the woman --

and when tests should the fetus to have severe abnormal condition --


In other words, the Catholic Bishops are acting in their own self-interests trying to

regain control over women and reproduction --

However, Catholic women have just as many abortions as any other women --


This is a male-supremacist church quite disconnected from any morality as we've seen

over and again in cover up of priestly-sexual abuse of children.

[Contrary1]

52. I had an ectopic pregnancy also...

A few days earlier, I had a terrible pain in my lower abdomen. Knowing now what I did not know then, that was the embryo tearing away. The next couple days, I had a nagging pain, nothing major...but it kept on.

About the fourth day, I went to the bathroom, and when I stood up; I fell against the wall. I knew something was terribly wrong. And so, on February 14th, 1982 at 3am, my husband drove me to the ER. By 5am, I was in surgery.

I was told that if I had been able to sleep the night before, I may not have survived. 11 Bravo, I am sorry for your loss, as well as my own.

And, I am happy for you (and me) that we have two wonderful children.

I have to admit that I haven't read up too much on the Stupak thing. But, once there is a rupture in an ectopic pregnancy, the embryo is no longer viable...so, is the removal of a dead embryo considered an abortion in this bill? I have to think not, since my surgery was performed at a Catholic hospital.

[Ms. Toad]

110. The text of the relevant portion of the Stupak amendment

>>No funds authorized or appropriated by the Act (or amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.<<

An ectopic pregnancy is ALWAYS life endangering - which means that treating it may be paid for by federal funds, or covered by insurance purchased with a federal subsidy.

The procedure may not even legally meet the definition of abortion. The definition will be in some federal statute - likely the 1976 Hyde amendment - so it may be that you don't even have to evaluate coverage under the Stupak amendment at all. But, if you do, it is clear if the treatment is an abortion it is still permitted to be paid for with federal funds.

[defendandprotect]

186. Canada covers ALL abortions as "medical procedure" . . .that's sufficient . . .

and the key word in your post is "MAY" . . .

Of course all abortions should be covered by any universal health care plan we may

put in place -- and by private insurance companies, as well, as part of women's health

programs.

In fact, Catholics agree with that --

Catholics . . . whenever a woman and her doctor decide it is appropriate -- 50% of all

Catholics and 53% if you include Latino/Latina

The Catholic Bishops and the Vatican are speaking for nothing but their own interests as

male-supremacists who want control over reproduction and human sexuality ....

Catholic women have as many abortions as any other women --

And the majority of Catholics use birth control and want contraception covered by a government

health plan -- 63% and 67% --!!!

[JDPriestly]

55. Thank you for posting this personal story 11 Bravo.

Ectopic pregnancies are one of the reasons that abortion must be paid for by insurance companies.

The Catholic church needs to tell us how it would advise families to handle these unfortunate pregnancies.

[cliffordu]

56. K&R. Great example.

[defendandprotect]

57. Sad but great truth telling which must be understood by more people . . .

and, of course, most in Congress know and protect their own families from anything

like being denied an abortion --

[winyanstaz]

66. K & R,,,,,Thank you for speaking out.

[Maru Kitteh]

67. PROUD to be K and R #157

[gleaner]

68. Thank you for sharing your experience .....

I see these talking points and I have heard the same kind of tripe for years. It is not "elective" surgery. Sometimes it is a choice of last resort, sometimes as in your case there is really no choice at all. That is why I am pro-choice. You loved your wife and you saved her. You are my idea of a wonderful and heroic husband. I'm glad you got your kids too. After what you went through, it is good to know that it all ended well and happily for you and for them.

[Dorian Gray]

69. That's so horrifying

I'm sorry you went through that. There was no choice involved in your situation. Your poor wife having to go through that. Glad it was long ago, and glad you had the family you always wanted despite that happening!

I went through a post-miscarriage D&C a month and a half ago, and it was extraordinarily painful (emotionally). I know that sometimes there is no choice in the matter.

[democrank]

70. Bless you

and your family

[lynne]

72. That's not elective. That was a life saving medically necessary procedure -

- a therapeutic abortion, as you say, - and would never have been considered anything other than that. I'm glad your wife got through the ordeal but it seems to me you're comparing apples and oranges here. There was no "elective" involved as this was a life-saving procedure and would not have been restricted or considered a "choice" even in the days before Roe vs. Wade.

[tsuki]

75. The question in my mind, Do I want to give them the right to decide?

The answer will depend on the person in charge. Is it an abortion? Should the patient suffer and die because suffering brings you closer to God? Having observed the Catholic Band-aid Station here for two and a half weeks, I have directed my family, if I every need it, take me to a real hospital. From what I saw of Catholic medical care, billing supersedes quality of care and life. I don't want them making decisions for me based on their superstitions.

[harun]

77. Sorry to hear about your experience but it doesn't equate in any way to the rage

you are expressing towards those people and Congress.

Apples to oranges.

For one, the amendment in Congress is simply so insurances on the exchange don't pay for elective abortion.

1) Your situation would not have been considered elective
2) It wouldn't have stopped you from having the procedure you did in any way

We need to be careful not to tread in to freeper land where we let emotion and falsehood destroy truth and reason.

Saying those people would have signed your wifes death warrant is patently false.

(Note: I think they are jack ass's too, but that's another discussion)

[Egnever]

122. Well said

I was going to rant about the ridiculousness of this post but you said it much better.

[defendandprotect]

207. Actually, IMO, fanatical fetal fantasy is ....

"treading into freeper land where they let emotion and falsehood destroy truth and reason."

The Catholic Hospitals were notorious for having let women die in childbirth in order to

"save the child" -- !!

This is nothing new.

Meanwhile, Catholics use contraception -- and have abortions as the same rate as any other

women -- and want those needs reflected in a government health care program.

So, the RCC Bishops are only representing their own self-interests in trying to regain control

over women and reproduction.

[fortyfeetunder]

80. Thank you for sharing

And I agree with your sentiments toward these unthinking politicians...

[brewens]

81. Have we ever had one of these "right to lifers" tell the story about

they let their wife die in similar circumstances? I've always assumed that they would have the abortion if it came down to that.
Of course, we don't hear those stories about how they realized they were wrong and had to save their wife.

[defendandprotect]

208. Would also be true of Congress, which will ensure their families are protected . . .

their wives, daughters, sisters, aunts, whatever --

[malaise]

84. A stunningly moving post

Tears and hugs.

Rec with pleasure.

[Bette Noir]

94. I'm glad everything turned out well.

To everyone here-- if you're in a situation like that, don't drive the patient to the ER; call 911. The paramedics can start treatment on the way, they can run red lights, and patients who arrive by ambulance tend to get seen more quickly once they get to the hospital.

[fascisthunter]

97. here's another kick

[Lost-in-FL]

98. Although I see the sincerity of your post, I am afraid you are perpetuating ignorance.

Fortunatelly, doctors and not politicians are willing to act on these possible silent killers.

Ectopic pregnacies ough to be TERMINATED the moment they become potentially lethal to the mother. That was NOT an elective abortion your wife had but an EMERGENCY SURGICAL PROCEDURE to contain the bleeding. In this case, the source of the hemorrhage was the rupture or self destruction of that ectopic pregancy unable to survive in the fallopian tube. The doctor is treating the HEMORRHAGE and not performing an abortion. Emergency surgery is done when it is this bad but when an ectopic pregnancy is diagnosed early, some doctors prescribe medications that would cause the body to accelerate the normal course of the ectopic pregnancy, its self destruction.

I am glad your wife made it and now you have 2 wonderful kids.

[Bluerthanblue]

167. not quite true-

my sister's first ectopic was done as a result of life threatening hemorrhaging- her second was done before there was any internal bleeding at all, after she and her husband had tried to conceive successfully for years, the news that implantation had occurred in her remaining fallopian tube forced them to have to 'elect' to surgically end the pregnancy before it ruptured. I was there with them, and I will never forget the pain and sorrow they had to try to navigate.
I also knew some people who believed the operation was an "elective abortion" and who were cold-hearted enough to say so in front of me and other family members.

So, technically- (while rational thinking people understand doing nothing would end 2 lives) there are those who view any procedure which intentionally ends a pregnancy is an "elective abortion".

[Lost-in-FL]

191. Not quite true what?

Sooner or later a surgical procedure have to happen to save the life of the mother. It is irrelevant to speak of a viable fetus as it will sooner or later die. Three months ago I had an early miscariage and didn't know I was pregnant. I was feeling horribly sick and my yearly OBGYN appointment was that day. My doctor told me I was pregnant and I was almost admitted on the spot. My doctor was already making arraingments for surgery pending an Ultrasound with a diagnosis of an ectopic pregnancy. I was NOT ASKED TO CHOOSE to have a gawdamned "elective abortion". My doctor was already planning the surgicaly removal of a "something" life threatening but I had already spontaneously aborted since there was no signs on the Ultrasound of a viable something. I was sent home. And no, I am not over it. And yes, I'm still pro choice.

Lets call it like it is. Lets not spread ignorance here. This is a very serious and hurtful episode and we should talk responsibly about it.

[Bluerthanblue]

242. I'm sorry for what you have gone through-

but if you read my post again, I think you'll see what I'm trying to say- I'm aware of how serious and painful this experience is. The 'something' life threatening you refer to was (in my sister's second ectopic pregnancy) a long wished for and much desired fetus. She and her husband had known for several weeks that she was pregnant and were thrilled but terrified of what the ultra-sound her OB scheduled would show as to where the embryo had attached. After it was determined that it was another ectopic pregnancy here was no question in anyones mind about not having surgery.
The fact that there was no way for the pregnancy to result in a live birth didn't alter the anguish my sister and her husband felt about the surgery.
Rather than to play word games there is this:

But, as the CDC noted, "Ectopic pregnancy, also known as a tubal pregnancy, is a potentially life-threatening form of pregnancy in which implantation of the fertilized egg occurs outside the uterus." The Mayo Clinic further noted that, despite O'Reilly's claim that "you can always have a C-section" if a complication occurs:

An ectopic pregnancy can't proceed normally. The developing embryo can't survive, and the growing placental tissue may destroy important maternal structures. Without treatment, life-threatening blood loss is possible.

Ectopic pregnancies are extremely risky and, according to the Mayo Clinic, even treatment can "lead to loss of reproductive organs or infertility." "Without treatment," the Mayo Clinic warns, "the stakes are even higher. A ruptured fallopian tube may lead to life-threatening bleeding." According to the CDC, "Ectopic pregnancies are the leading cause of pregnancy-related deaths in the first trimester and account for 9% of all pregnancy-related deaths in this country."

Treatment for ectopic pregnancies mandates a termination of the pregnancy, most often by a form of therapeutic abortion. Therapeutic abortions are performed when a woman's life is directly threatened by the pregnancy and saving the fetus is not an option.

from:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200610160007

It's important to use the words that are being used by medical professionals and lay-people alike. In Nicaragua a woman died because the Dr's at a hospital were afraid of treating her after all 'abortions' were outlawed- even though there was a special provision for cases of ectopic pregnancies. I'm pro-choice as well- it's important to remember that when people start talking about restricting abortions, they are setting up the chance of women being denied real life saving medical intervention.
a link to why the 'language' is important:
http://www.ipas.org/Library/News/News_Items/Therapeutic_abortion_in_the_Nicaraguan_press.aspx

I'm sorry that you've been through such a difficult, sad experience.

I wish you comfort, healing and peace~

blu

[dadzilla]

100. "I'll never forget"

This is a story that shouldn't be just here, this is a story that ought to be repeated in the halls of Congress. We hear often how anti-abortion foes take to the floor to offer their side of the story. What we rarely hear is the real life stories of people who have found themselves having to make a hard choice if not a life or death choice.

[humbled_opinion]

102. I wish everyone wouldn't argue about the issue.

It is terrible that women would abort babies as a form of birth control. That part needs to be illegal. There are too many birth control alternatives available today.

Abortion should be available for medical necessity the health of the mother it is without question as well as rape, incest, and severe handicap of the fetus.

People just need to take a common sense approach and stop all the insanity with this issue.

The Blue Dogs on this issue are using a common sense approach.

[TwilightGardener]

111. While I respect your opinion, the vast majority of DU believes that abortion

should be legal regardless of medical necessity (as do I). The Blue Dogs are snakes in the grass for trying to use the health care bill to restrict access to abortion services.

[PeaceNikki]

113. You should be ashamed of yourself. This is an altogether disgusting post.

[humbled_opinion]

120. Why?

Because I have an opinion that is not shared by you? I won't extrapolate on what you believe because your post did not in any form elude to it. I am sure you are not for abortion on demand as a form of birth control now are you? Don't you agree that men and women should take a responsible approach to sex and use available birth control methods?

Maybe you can explain why the incidence of abortion as a form of birth control has not seriously decreased in the last decade?

[PeaceNikki]

123. Anyone who throws around the term "abortion as a form of birth control" is clueless

and judgmental. You have clearly no idea at ALL and are beyond hope. What a stupid notion.

Here you go: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/reproductive_rights/2007/10/abortion-as-a-1.html

Women -- I mean, what are we like? Having abortions for totally trivial reasons, like not wanting to be pregnant! You'd think by now we'd have got it into our heads that abortions are only for women who really deserve them, which basically means anyone who has been raped (though not according to the Vatican) or can show that they're really, really upset.

What does it mean to use abortion as "form of birth control" anyway? I assume that, when people say this, they envision a woman who routinely has unprotected sex knowing she doesn't want to have a child, and who then resorts to an abortion should she become pregnant. (Of course, the accusation wholly ignores the responsibility of the male partner, who presumably also "uses abortion as a form of birth control" by failing to use a condom.)

But before hurling the old "abortion as birth control" accusation, it's important to be aware of the facts. Women are at risk of pregnancy for over three decades of their lives, and they spend most of this time trying to avoid becoming pregnant.

So why do women end up needing abortions? My hunch is that most women (1) use contraception, but do so imperfectly; (2) practice abstinence, but do so imperfectly; or (3) some combination of (1) and (2). Indeed, in busting the myth that "women are using abortion as birth control," the Guttmacher Institute points out:

Half of all women getting abortions report that contraception was used during the month they became pregnant. Some of these couples had used the method improperly; some had forgotten or neglected to use it on the particular occasion they conceived; and some had used a contraceptive that failed. No contraceptive method prevents pregnancy 100% of the time.

If abortion were used as a primary method of birth control, a typical woman would have at least two or three pregnancies per year -- 30 or more during her lifetime.

In fact, most women who have abortions have had no previous abortions (52%) or only one previous abortion (26%). Considering that most women are fertile for over 30 years, and that birth control is not perfect, the likelihood of having one or two unintended pregnancies is very high.

Do you know any woman who has had thirty abortions? Neither do I.

[humbled_opinion]

127. Nonsense...

You over hype what I am saying. Obviously women get pregnant even when they are trying not to and I have no problem with a women getting an abortion if these accidents do happen but we all understand the functions of sex, if there was any question that the birth control method used did not work then there is always the morning after EC.

My position is simple,

If a women gets pregnant regardless of the circumstances that preceeded it.

If she plans for the child, Oh it might be nice to have a baby, I think I will name him ...., Creates future memories of the child, etc... and then for whatever reason short of medical necessity to her i.e, financial, partner leaves, emotional, etc, decides that she is going to destroy that life she is carrying then that, that is the danger and that is the particular ones I am talking about and that would fit the definition of using Abortion as birth control. In fact I see it more like Murder but hey thats just me.

You decide.

[PeaceNikki]

130. That's right... *I* decide, not you.

It's a decision between a woman and her physician and thankfully you have ZERO say in the matter. But that doesn't keep you from judging others, does it?

It's appalling that you think you have a right to judge anyone for the medical decisions that they make. If it were up to you women would either have no choice or be forced to justify their decision so that it fits into one of your neat little "acceptable" boxes or be deemed a murderer.

[humbled_opinion]

131. Exactly, Exactly, Exactly.

I am a taxpayer and because like you said "YOU" decide then don't take my tax dollars and subsidize "YOUR" decisions how is that fair?

YEAH FOR THE STUPAK Ammendment you made my point better then I could.

[PeaceNikki]

I see. Your goal is to restrict access. Pretty arrogant to think you have a say in where health care

dollars are spent. Why do you care if your tax dollars are spent on abortions?

It's not about the money, is it? It can't be. If these pregnancies go to term, the cost of prenatal care and delivery far exceeds the cost of termination.

Let's be honest, it's about your opinion of the procedure. It's about your beliefs. Why is it OK that you factor your opinion of this procedure into HCR? And more importantly, why is it OK to use HCR to restrict access? Because that's what Stupak and DFLA really want. And, if the desire really is to reduce the number of abortions, why not mandate the coverage of contraception in the bill?

[humbled_opinion]

141. You can't make up your mind can you.

I argued up thread that mandated contraception should be in the bill, and you told me I was being restrictive especially to those on relief. I agree with you that madated coverage of contraception should be in the bill. I agree that the costs of delivery and care far exceed the cost of termination but I want that termination decision made immediately.

Second, no It is not the money, it is the principle. I argued that I have an opinion and principles and morals that I believe and no they are not the same as yours but you can't just disregard other peoples opinions and expect to get anything accomplished because there are millions of people that share my opinion and there are millions that are much further restrictive then my opinion is so it just can't be discounted.

Stupak seems to be what will satifsy the majority of people that have a different opinion then yours and still leave the options themselves open an available.

I look at STUPAK as a forced responsibility issue, you won't be able to use your insurance to pay for abortion so abortion will become seriously cost prohibitive which will again potentially give pause to irresponsible women and men to double down on their protective measures.

I truly am Pro-Choice, I just don't want to be forced to participate in that choice and you should'nt want me to either.

[PeaceNikki]

143. No, you argued that people should be mandated to be ON contraception if on assistance.

I stated that the COVERAGE of contraception by health insurance, when a proper course of care as determined by a woman and her physician, should be mandated.

[defendandprotect]

217. Why then are we subsidizing the Catholic Church?

I certainly don't agree with supporting any church --

leave alone a male-supremacist cult --

which for thousands of years has been involved in sexual abuse of children and members.

At least, according to the Italians -- who seem to know!

[humbled_opinion]

133. and furthermore....

Abortion is legal I am not trying to change that, you can do anything you want its your body. This whole issue is being driven by what part YOU want society to play in your decisions. If you want complete privacy then pay for it yourself it was your mistake.

[PeaceNikki]

137. You just want to restrict access.

Like Stupak and the assholes in the DFLA.

Your argument about society paying for your decisions is the most ridiculous thing ever. Especially with regards to healthcare.

Should you not get help from the fire department because you fucked up and left a candle burning? Should you not get health care because you failed to exercise and eat well and ended up with diabetes? Should lung cancer not be treated if a patient was a long-time smoker?

No... you just want to restrict access to abortions because you don't "like" them.

[Ms. Toad]

172. So -

If I have a child with anencephaly, that is my mistake that I should pay for? The Stupak amendment would bar coverage for an abortion of an anencephalic child, who would be unable to live more than a few days beyond birth.

If I have a child with trisomy 18, that is my mistake that I should pay for? The Stupak amendment would bar coverage for an abortion of a child with trisomy 18 - which has a median survival time of 14.5 days, if it is one of the few who make it to birth.

If I have become pregnant after my spouse has a vasectomy and we have unprotected sex only after he tested netative for the presence of sperm, and the vasectomy later reversed itself, that is my mistake that I should pay for? The Stupak amendment would bar coverage for an abortion of a child the parents should not have been able to conceive.

No one is asking for Society to help women make the decision. What Stupak does is deprive women without means of medical options that are available to women with means, because women with means can afford to pay for the extra medical options.

[defendandprotect]

218. That would be a great idea to carry over into Wall Street, Banks and capitalism in general -- !!!

Meanwhile, you would be denying women who need late term abortions any assistance?

Interesting frame of mind . . .

[Dora]

155. NO WOMAN SHOULD BE OBLIGATED TO CARRY A PREGNANCY SHE DOES NOT WANT.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter one whit the circumstances of the conception.

Whether a woman conceives due to error, ignorance, assault, intent, or outright indifference - none of those have any bearing on whether she should carry a pregnancy she does. not. want.

[humbled_opinion]

160. Hell Yeah then why stop there.

Lets let them kill em even after their born, you know if their not quite right and all...

Seems mighty progressive of you.

[Lars39]

182. You'd be fine with a return to slavery.

[defendandprotect]

220. You mean the way that "Pro-Lifers" have murdered doctors -- ???

[defendandprotect]

219. Wholeheartedly agree --

:)

[defendandprotect]

209. Catholics have decided on abortion and accept it . . . and want it covered . . .

Therefore, the Bishops are only representing their own self-interests in trying to

regain control over women and reproduction --

If she plans for the child, Oh it might be nice to have a baby, I think I will name him ...., Creates future memories of the child, etc... and then for whatever reason short of medical necessity to her i.e, financial, partner leaves, emotional, etc, decides that she is going to destroy that life she is carrying then that, that is the danger and that is the particular ones I am talking about and that would fit the definition of using Abortion as birth control. In fact I see it more like Murder but hey thats just me.

You're arguing a "bad hair day" --

Women have SERIOUS reasons for terminating a pregnancy they once desired . . .

And in recognition of that right to CHOICE -- those millions of individual decisions -- for

personal reasons -- the right wing "Pro-Life-Assassins" have responded by MURDERING DOCTORS.

Is there any question about those 'MURDERS' in your mind?

Is there any question in your mind that the Vatican/RCC hold the low ground as far as

morals and morality are concerned given their violent history, long list of enemies from women

to Jews -- and their protecting pedophile priests who have sexually abused children over

thousands of years!!

They finally got caught -- !!!

And they're now looking to the American taxpayer to subsidize their legal bills!!!

[defendandprotect]

188. Your post is not so much debate as

misunderstanding what birth control can and cannot do --

Many males do not want to use contraception/Condoms -- as we see from the high

rates of AIDS/HIV -- and women are often the secondary victims of this disease when

men bring it home.

Birth control is not 100% effective . . .

Therefore abortion is often "Plan B" ---

ABORTION FIGURES ALWAYS REMAIN THE SAME ....

The only time they will change is when we approach near perfection on birth control products.

BECAUSE though 2/3rds of pregnancies are unplanned . . . women generally decide to go forward

with the pregnancy in about half the cases.

Around the world abortion statistics remain the same whether abortions are LEGAL OR ILLEGAL.

They don't change --

and therefore, the decision society makes is whether they will protect the life of the female

by making abortion legal, or whether they will permit illegal abortionists to bring death to

women.

[Schema Thing]

115. They don't abort babies

I've seen babies, I've changed babies' nappies, I've made funny faces at babies. This sir, is not a baby...:

...it's a potential republican (you can kind of see that).



Life only begins when you can throw up on another human being.

[humbled_opinion]

119. True enough but given the opportunity that thing

would be what you described. You can't change the reality of the matter and ignoring it is ignorant.

You certainly would agree that women should not use Abortion as a method of Birth Control now don't you? or are you an anti-humanist?

[Schema Thing]

121. If you're going to go throwing around the word "should", then

as a humanist, I believe that women only "should" have babies if they are ready, enthusiastically willing, and able to love cherish and care for a child for 18 years or so.

Because one thing I know for a fact is that for all their high-minded, low-moral blather, anti-abortionist don't pick up the slack and love cherish and care for the very real babies born from unwanted pregnancies.

[humbled_opinion]

124. See we agree...

I am not debating why some people stick to an anti-abortion opinion. I am looking at the reality of the situation. Abortion should be something that women do not need or desire. Personal responsibility would take care of that.

Thats why I fully support norplant, IUD's, morning after pills, etc. and support making them mandatory for anyone that is on state relief programs or welfare.

Maybe you can explain why with all the available birth control options women who don't want to be pregnant are still getting pregnant?

My humanist side feels that once a women who is pregnant assigns life to that child, i.e., plans for it, names it, creates future memories of it, She has given it life and unless there is a medical risk to her if she decides to abort after that, well that is not really abortion, it is more akin to murder.

[PeaceNikki]

126. Wow. You want to restrict the reproductive rights of people on assistance?!!?

Sick.

[humbled_opinion]

128. Strange way of looking at that

So you want tax payers to pay for women to have abortions on demand and won't support the cheaper version which is to stop the pregnancy from happening in the first place..

Or pay for society to raise the unwanted child that is put in a foster home because the mother really couldn't afford that decision she made...


Now thats SICK.

[Schema Thing]

139. You said:

"My humanist side feels that once a women who is pregnant assigns life to that child, i.e., plans for it, names it, creates future memories of it, She has given it life"



First of all, "creates future memories of it" is nonsensical to me.

But if we agree on those other things, then fine. Those things are entirely up to the woman, and will of course vary from woman to woman.

[humbled_opinion]

148. Ok...

Let me explain myself then, I have 4 children but my wife has had 5 pregnancies. Our second pregnancy we were so hopeful that it would be a girl, we picked out names, we talked about her future, we assigned her life, she was just as real in my mind and my wifes then any of my other children were. Unfortunately, my wife started bleeding in her 11th week, tests concluded that the babies heart had stopped and she had to undergo a D&C. It was as emotional and devastating a thing we have ever endured.

My position is truly a common sense one. I have known women that have been pregnant and overjoyed at first, then after a few weeks of the reality of the situation setting in and them reassessing their life they "CHANGED THEIR MIND" how can a person live with themselves, anyway that is why I think the way I do.

[Schema Thing]

151. weird to me, that you wouldn't understand the concept

of "reality setting in".


also, if your 11 week old cell division/sex-creation was as "real" to you as actual children, your mind works very different than my mind. I'm sorry if it caused you pain, but it rather seems a choice you made, to over-dramatize and project yourself onto a potential child you'd never met, nor would you meet. Hell, I think one of the biggest problems in the world is parents projecting on to their actual, *born* children. Let them be who they will be, and enjoy them for who they are (unless they're miniature republicans, then it's off to the orphanage and back to the bedroom!).


I say this as the parent of the world's best kid.

[humbled_opinion]

153. and just as weird to me...

is your emotionless dribble... to imagine that you never connected spiritually and emotionally to your child until it was actually born, wonder if it know this? How could you ever explain that oh you were just a bunch of cells until you were born then I actually started to care about you?

seems like a visit to a good therapist is in order for you to find out what that underlying condition is.

Not that I actually believe you because if you truly felt that way then why would you even bother carrying to term? If the growth was akin to cancer you should have wanted it out as soon as possible but I digress.

I do not project on to my children they are who they are and I do enjoy them everyday for their uniqueness.

But I have actually cried when my Pugs puppy died in birth too so hell maybe I do have issues who knows...

LOL

[Schema Thing]

156. but of course you're projecting again...

"to imagine that you never connected spiritually and emotionally to your child until it was actually born, wonder if it know this?"


...because I never said that - you projected it on to me. That said, I was WAY more invested in my daughter at 8 months than I was at 8 weeks. She's 18 years as of last week, and I think she understands.

[humbled_opinion]

158. AH HA,

you admit there came a tipping point in your mind while she was still inuterine when she became more then just a bunch of cells.

NICE, glad your not my mom.

[Schema Thing]

161. I never indicated otherwise.

but then again, she had two parents who were committed to her.

[humbled_opinion]

228. Thanks for playing

See my post #224

[Ms. Toad]

146. You need to review the medical consequences of your recommendations

all of the birth control methods you have suggested can have severe medical consequences.

IUD - I had a particularly nasty bout with PID that came close to preventing me from having children. I didn't get it from an IUD, or even from an STD - but I know what the risks are because I have lived with it, and I would NEVER allow anyone to insert an IUD in my body. Anyone who has had PID (whatever the source) should also not take the morning after pill because of the risk of a tubal pregnancy.

Birth Control pills/Norplant/Morning after Pill - I also have DVT. Aside from being a life threatening condition, it makes me uninsurable. The primary questions they asked when trying to figure out why I was blessed with DVT were whether I smoked or took birth control pills. If I were not personally at increased risk, I might consent to using the morning after pill on a one time basis - but I would never allow anyone to force me to take Norplant or Birth Control pills on an extended basis.

Other methods are less effective - and there is always the risk of pregnancy.

And - as a humanist - what gives you the right to make reproductive decisions for someone merely because they are on state relief programs or welfare? My daughter was on Medicaid for the first 8 years of her life. She was deliberately conceived through donor insemination. Because my spouse and I share a gender, the state refused to recognize our marriage (making it impossible for me to obtain coverage through my spouse because the state does not require insurers to provide "domestic partner" coverage for small companies - even if the company chooses to offer it). The state officially denied our request to create a legal relationship between my spouse and our daughter (which would have given her access to coverage through my spouse). And - my spouse lost the first two jobs she had immediately after our daughter was born due to discrimination, cutting our income to about 1/3 of what we had expected to be living on. We would have purchased private insurance but for (1) being uninsurable in the private market and (2) the outrageously high cost of the state high risk pool. I got by on catastrophic insurance, which covered none of my pre-existing conditions.

You never know why people are on state assistance, whether it is temporary or long term, or whether unexpected circumstances even with the best of planning put them there.

The need for state assistance does mean those who need it are unable to make responsible decisions for themselves. The temporary need for state assistance does not justify an assumption that the state has a financial interest in truncating the family size. In our case, by now I have paid far more in taxes than we received in medical care for our daughter during those 8 years (and we have paid far more than married couples with a similar income - this year I think the penalty associated with refusal to recognize our marriage was around $3000).

[kag]

169. Yes!

And anyone with high blood pressure (as I have had since I was in my twenties) is not a candidate for the "morning after pill". It's just a very high dose birth control pill (actually more than one), and could cause a stroke if I were to take it. So I couldn't take bc pills because of my bp. Couldn't get a diaphragm because of the shape of my cervix. Even the foam sponges that were all the rage when I was 25 caused a nasty rash, as if I were allergic to them (which I probably was). IUD was out for the same reason as the diaphragm. I always had to rely on the man to wear a condom or have a vasectomy.

No, humbled, you don't know what you're talking about. And then, when I got married and desperately wanted children, I had many miscarriages because of what turned out to be a genetic "issue". Each time I had to decide whether or not to have a D&C to avoid infection and possible hemorrhaging. The one time I didn't I ended up in the bathroom at 3am, in excruciating pain, cleaning blood and tissue up from the bathroom floor, trying to be quiet so my husband could sleep because I knew I'd need him to be rested so that I could rest and heal in the morning (by that time we had two gorgeous children, and dearly wanted one more). It was devastating. Devastating.

Women need information, not evangelizing. Women need to be able to make this choice in consultation with her doctor and loved ones without the government or ANYONE interfering. Everyone's case is different. You'll never know who your hurting, whose life you could be destroying, by supporting Stupak and his STUPID amendment.

[humbled_opinion]

224. I don't care what decision you and your doctor make

That is none of my business and your pregnancy or lack of pregnancy or tolerance to BC issues are not my business. So you are right keep them from being my business by not using my TAX dollars to subsidize something that I feel is morally reprehensible.

The Stupak ammendment does nothing to interfere with a womans ability to get an abortion. It just doesn't pay for it.

What can't you and every other Pro-abortion person understand about that? You can have abortion parties for all I care just do it with your dime not mine. Forcing me to participate in your health issues is the problem.


Now with all that said I want to make my point a little bit further so you can see where I am going with all this.

and I hope everyone that has read this thread will contine downstream and get my entire gist so I don't have to repeat the final point in this exercise.

here goes.

Turning over healthcare to the government for the government to control might seem like a good and noble and wise thing to do right now because of the rotten way that insurance companies have screwed with people over the last decades. However, imagine 8 years from now a Republican Congress and a President Palin who has the very controls that we are about to give over to the government at her disposal.

Do you think for one second that with that kind of power she would not hesitate to launch an attack on our Freedom to in her view CURE THE SOCIAL ILLS of our times?

Imagine when she signs an executive order banning any federal money for abortion, imagine when she makes pregnancy a patient non-compliance with birth control and therefore not covered under any govt plan. imagine when she futher over reaches and claims that STD's are not going to be covered under the government health plan because they are also a failure to comply adequately with approved BC methods.

Imagine the power we are about to hand to the government in the hands of President Palin and then rethink where you stand on this entire debate.

Democrats will not be in charge forever. Think about it.

[humbled_opinion]

237. After posting all this here comes this news story

That dove tails nicely to my point. The fundies are going to do exactly what I am saying they will. They fully intend to bring a religious component to the state.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4172832

[defendandprotect]

189. Humorously doing your best to educate the right wing . . . Thank you!!

[Ms. Toad]

125. Using abortion as your prefered form of birth control is stupid

from a medical and financial perspective. Abortions are (generally) surgical procedures that carry with them risks - other forms of birth control carry far less risk. Abortions cost $300-$500 for an uncomplicated one - condoms cost far less. If that is what you are relying on not to have children, you are putting both your life and finances at risk.

Just because it is a stupid decision from at least two perspectives does not mean it should be illegal. There are all sorts of stupid things that we do not make illegal.

And, the reality is that there are very few women who actually use abortion as a means of birth control - doing so is just not in the woman's best interest. Using the "abortion shouldn't be used as birth control" reasoning because there may be a few women who do is insulting - virtually everyone who takes more than a few seconds to think about it would agree. The vast majority of women who seek an abortion have only one in their lifetime. If they were using it as a method of birth control they would have far more. My spouse's mother was pregnant 9 times - if she intended not to be pregnant that would have been 9 abortions (or more, since she was infertile during significant period of her adult life while carrying her children).

Women who find themselves pregnant when they don't want to have a child run the gamut from the very few who just couldn't be bothered to the similarly few who were using multiple forms of birth control and still got pregnant. Most are in the middle - they choose to use a less effective form of birth control because it has fewer health consequences than more effective ones (condoms v. IUD, for example) and were unlucky. They were celebrating their anniversary/new years/the loss of electricity and slipped up. Their usually reliable ability to predict ovulation (and thus the safe period for having unprotected sex) failed them. They used back-up birth control for the recommended time after a vasectomy and still got pregnant Whatever.

When that happens, it none of my business how they choose to handle the resulting pregnancy - even if I, personally, would make a very different decision than they would.

[humbled_opinion]

129. I think you have to read the enitre sub-thread because I do agree

with most of what you said. The point I was making initially was that this whole issue should not even be an issue with the advances in birth control and morning after EC availability it seems to me that the curve of abortions should be on a dramatic down swing...

[Schema Thing]

140. I will say that I am continually gobsmacked that morning after pills

haven't made this an almost moot argument.

[Ms. Toad]

149. There are medical risks associated with morning after pills.

Because some pharmacies refuse to dispense them they are not available everywhere in time to prevent pregnancy
and, finally, I suspect a large number of abortions still occur because people don't believe they could be pregnant from the previous night encounter (whether because they are on birth control pills, because they are unsophisticated teens, because they thought they were in a safe time, etc.)

[Ms. Toad]

147. And you need to read the post I just made about those advances

in birth control and the medical risks associated with them.

[humbled_opinion]

152. I did and yes

I agree you have valid points. There are many concerns on both sides of the issue. I think though we all do agree that stopping pregnancy before it happens should be the goal and taking my tax dollars and applying them to that has my 100 percent support.

[Ms. Toad]

154. I don't see it as an either/or proposition

The insurance reform can include both better support for family planning education/tools AND coverage for abortion when the woman and her doctor agree that it is appropriate for her.

What set me on edge (and I suspect others from the responses you have received) is the condescending language and recommendations that imply that (1) people who have abortions for other than lifesaving/rape/severe disability of the child are using abortion as "birth control" and (2) that the state has the right to dictate family size merely because the family needs state assistance.

[humbled_opinion]

157. Well if thats the way that people decided to read into

what I was saying so be it. My point is valid this is not a one sided issue. People have different opinions and everyone of them has a place in the debate. You can never make everyone happy I understand this but you won't change my mind and I won't change yours on this particular issue so it is a stalmate and I do agree with you and other posters

Remove this issue as an issue from the HCR debate that is exactly what the STUPAK ammendment does it removes it as an issue.

You can fight about it all day long but abortion is still a viable option to any women that chooses it. She is just gonna have to pay for out outside of her normal government subsidized health insurance.

Why is that a problem?

[Ms. Toad]

162. Because it makes women who happen to be poor

into second class citizens with respect to an issue of health care.

A particularly egregious aspect of the Stupak amendment is that it makes no exception for abortions based on severely disabling (or life threatening) issues. If you have money, you can have an abortion. If you don't have money - tough luck. If you have a child who is expected to be born with anencephaly, trisomy 18 (or any of the other trisomy abnormalities), tay sach's disease (a universal fatal and extremely painful disease), sickle cell anemia (not universally fatal, but severely painful and disabling), AND you are poor - you must have your child and bear the extraordinary costs (financial and emotional) associated with raising this child - for however brief a time that child lives. If you have money to pay for it, you have the option of choosing an abortion.

As to interpretation - please go back and read your posts and try to imagine yourself as someone on state aid and see if you can really interpret your posts as anything but paternalistic, condescending, and based on class.

[humbled_opinion]

166. Stop, Stop, Stop Just Stop...

I get all that....

The objective silly is not to get pregnant. PERIOD. Everything and anything goes. You keep on giving me the points after the fact. As if there were no choice but pregnancy. Example....

If you told a women that if she inadvertantly became pregnant and decided to abort that the abortion would include complete hysterectomy don't you think she would double the protection measures?

If she has to pay alot of money to have an abortion that will be a good lesson learned I assume.

[Ms. Toad]

170. No. You don't get it. You are the one excluding

coverage solely for one aspect of post conception care. I am in favor of making sure all women have access to care at whatever stage of pregnancy they need it, which includes coverage for all medical procedures the woman and her physician decide are appropriate. That includes, as I stated before, encouraging women who do not want to have children from becoming pregnant.

The reality is, though, that birth control includes risks which it may not be medically appropriate for any individual woman or couple to accept- and no method of birth control is 100% effective. There will be women who become pregnant - even despite their best efforts not to - who do not want to raise a child. Your suggestion punishes those women who not only become pregnant - but also have the audacity to be poor. It will have virtually no impact on rich women in similar circumstances.

If you want to devise a way of teaching women and men to be careful when having sex in a way which has an equal impact on all parties involved in getting pregnant (i.e. both the man and the woman) and across all class lines, that is a very different proposal than the Stupak amendment. I still think it would not be an appropriate intrusion into the choice that belongs to a woman and her doctor - but at least its impact would not disproportionately impact women in poverty.

[humbled_opinion]

222. OK...

You see you and I are the exact reason that there is no concensus on abortion funding with tax dollars. You have your opinion and I have mine and you will never convince me and I will never convince you.

Only one of us is going to get our way though in this Heatlcare reform bill. It is also the reason that I believe Roe V Wade is bad Federal Law. The states should be able to decide if they will allow abortion or not that way a women in a state that does not allow abortion can go over to a state that does support abortion and have her procedure and people are totally free to live in the state they desire to either support it or not.

Your way forces me to support something that I am against regardless of the reasons I am against it this is America and I should not be forced to subsidize with tax dollars something that I am morally opposed to.

I personally don't care what anyone does with their bodies its not my business, but if you are going to require me to participate in the action that I will object to, or do you believe the state has the right to force free Americans to participate in things that are morally reprehensible to them?

[Ms. Toad]

229. Frankly, I find your classism and mysogyny pretty frightening.

in a place like DU.

As for using my tax dollars to fund things I find morally reprehensible with my tax dollars - unfortunately over half of my tax dollars do go to pay for things I find morally reprehensible. That is the nature of taxes, although it is more extreme for those who are morally opposed to the war than other issues (including abortion, whose opponents seem to feel abortion is different from every other issue).

[humbled_opinion]

231. See Post #224

I guess I may even be the devil...

have a nice day...:evilgrin:

[Ms. Toad]

232. No, but what you are promoting is not consistent with progressive ideals. n/t

[humbled_opinion]

234. Aw come on now..

Who is associating labels now?

I am a Democrat always have been my views can run the gambit depending on the issue.

Are you saying my input is not welcome here?

I didn't know there was a new Purity test for Progressives on this site, many would fail for various reasons based on posts that I have read but if there is one please provide the link to it so I can study up on the things that I am allowed to think here.

LOL you are funny.

[Ms. Toad]

253. From the first paragraph of About DU

..Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas.<<

I also believe you referred to yourself as a progressive in another thread which I have read within the last couple of days - but I'm not finding it quickly.

[humbled_opinion]

236. DO YOU SEE THIS....

No sooner did I end my posts on this issue here and WACK the fundies are doing exactly what I am telling you is going to happen....

Read the link and tell me if you can start to see the parallels.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4172832

[Ms. Toad]

252. You really don't see that the Stupak amendment,

which you support, and the attempt to have prayer paid for as medical treatment are promoted by the same "WACK" fundies?

You can't use tax dollars to pay for religion (prayer is not medicine - as much as I, personally, believe in the healing power of prayer), and you can't use religion as a basis to deny paying for medical treatment (which does include abortion - even though I, personally, would never have one).

That's what separation of church and state are about.

[humbled_opinion]

227. Thanks for playing..

see my post #224

[defendandprotect]

187. So you want to force women to continue pregnancies they don't want??

And, exactly how would you do that?

Meanwhile, Canada covers ALL abortions as "medical procedure" . ..

that's sufficient.

Presume you're also including females who are raped or suffer incest?

Blue dogs should be targeted and thrown out of Congress . . .

they have no role in the Democratic Party --

[Lost-in-FL]

195. Nice, this thread has officialy become a cesspool of misinformation.

The termination of non-viable-ectopic pregnancies ARE NOT ELECTIVE PROCEDURES or a form of LATE TERM ABORTION as they occur early during the pregnancy.

[rd_kent]

203. Who are you to decide what tyoes of birth control should be illegal?

Just because YOU don't approve does not mean I need to agree with you and follow YOUR beliefs.

[seabeyond]

107. By the way, ... thank you for the btw. i needed the btw. and thank you for sharing

your story.

[rd_kent]

108. For those that seem to have forgotten what the definition is.......

From Dictionary.com

e⋅lec⋅tive –adjective
1. pertaining to the principle of electing to an office, position, etc.
2. chosen by election, as an official.
3. bestowed by or derived from election, as an office.
4. having the power or right of electing to office, as a body of persons.
5. open to choice; optional; not required: an elective subject in college; elective surgery.
6. Chemistry. selecting for combination or action; tending to combine with certain substances in preference to others: elective attraction.


choice –noun
1. an act or instance of choosing; selection: Her choice of a computer was made after months of research. His parents were not happy with his choice of friends.
2. the right, power, or opportunity to choose; option: The child had no choice about going to school.
3. the person or thing chosen or eligible to be chosen: This book is my choice. He is one of many choices for the award.
4. an alternative: There is another choice.
5. an abundance or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of candidates.
6. something that is preferred or preferable to others; the best part of something: Mare's Nest is the choice in the sixth race.
7. a carefully selected supply: This restaurant has a fine choice of wines.
8. a choice grade of beef.



So, choice and elective are synonymous, right? IOW, THE SAME THING.


ne⋅ces⋅si⋅ty –noun
1. something necessary or indispensable: food, shelter, and other necessities of life.
2. the fact of being necessary or indispensable; indispensability: the necessity of adequate housing.
3. an imperative requirement or need for something: the necessity for a quick decision.
4. the state or fact of being necessary or inevitable: to face the necessity of testifying in court.
5. an unavoidable need or compulsion to do something: not by choice but by necessity.
6. a state of being in financial need; poverty: a family in dire necessity.
7. Philosophy. the quality of following inevitably from logical, physical, or moral laws.




11 Bravo, I am very happy that your wife was ok and that you now have two great kids. My wife and I just had our first, I know your joy.

But there was nothing "elective" about her situation, it was MEDICAL NECESSITY.



I am 100% pro-CHOICE, for any reason a womans wants, no exceptions. But trying to tie two totally different circumstances together is not doing anyone any good. A woman should have a choice, regardless if it is for convenience or because her life is in danger, but it IS important to differentiate between a elective CHOICE and a medical NECESSITY.

[defendandprotect]

205. 'CHOICE' can also be essential to the woman . . . for whatever her reasons . . .

All abortion should be covered in the US as a "medical procedure" --

and the Catholic Church should pay some attention to its real problems with

priest-sexual abuse --

The Vatican speaks from a moral low ground ---

It's a male-supremacist cult --

[rd_kent]

211. Is anyone arguing to the contrary?

and why are you stalking my posts?

[defendandprotect]

214. "Elective" is still "Essential" and "Necessary" . .. simply non-emergency . .

as common sense would inform us --

Meanwhile, I thought you were "stalking my posts" . . . ??

[rd_kent]

240. essential and necessary is the OPPOSITE of elective.

you need to consult a dictionary.

and, no, you are responding to all of my posts that are not directed to you.. Thats stalking and you have been reported.

[femrap]

109. I hope Stupak, O'Reilly, etc.

never have intercourse again. I hope viagra makes them blind.

If these a-holes worried more about where male sperm goes and not about about women's uteri, women wouldn't need to have abortions.

Worry about your own dick, Stupak. Teach boys to take responsibility.

Women want their FREEDOM!

[humbled_opinion]

135. LOL...

now now... it is a 50/50 proposition or has something changed?

[femrap]

244. now now....

Freedom is for all. Or has that changed?

[Sinti]

112. K&R and thank god your wife is okay n/t

[GoldenOldie]

118. I remember well when JFK was unacceptable as Presidential

because as a Catholic, the good Christians thought it would be The Pope who would be actually ruling the US.

How times have changed! Now our Catholic elected Reps don't even have to reach as high as the Pope, they simply have a need to confer with their Catholic Bishops before they decide on a vote for the women's choice????

Tell me how in the hell any priest, pastor, layman, etc., is so proficient in their medical knowledge as to know when an individual woman may need and require medical intervention/abortion to save the life of the mother and at times a viable baby from a multiple pregnancy. With so many technical abnormalities that can and do at times occur during a pregnancy, this must be a decision left to the doctor, the woman and her family and not an elected official, nor a priest or Pope. If one doesn't not think that many these same officials have utilized the abortion process for their self-protection, I am sure you still believe in Santa Claus.

There is a reason they call the birth of a baby a "miracle." Not all pregnancies are miracles and a woman, her doctor and her family, will always need the full support to deal with it.

[defendandprotect]

206. Or what right of the Catholic Bishops to inflict their "morals" on the rest of us . . .

as far as "morality" is concerned, the RCC is on the moral low ground . . .

[spooky3]

117. Thank goodness you were there for her, that she got the care she needed, and

that you have the children you wanted so badly. Thanks for sharing your story.
k&r

[marshall]

132. Therapeutic abortions are by definition not elective

Just as some plastic surgery is not elective and some is.

I had rhinoplasty for a deviated septum--that is therapeutic. A nose job to grind it down to a point like Michael Jackson's is not.

I hope nobody with a real understanding and who is pro choice would advocate the idea that all abortions are elective surgeries (though I suppose economics drives some to use tortured logic).

[TCJ70]

134. I don't think anyone is saying that...

...but apparently there are some people in these threads who think for some reason that elective = banned. Not quite sure where that comes from. I would consider an elective abortion the epitome of choice.

[valerief]

136. Jesus says mustn't kill, except for war, of course. So the mother should have died even

though the "child" would never have come to term anyway.

This is Jesusland. All decisions are made by Jesus. Logic has no place in law, just Jesus rules, or so say the Jesusmen running our country.

[Bluerthanblue]

246. do you know about the women in Nicaragua who have died because

of bans on all abortions- including 'therapeutic'?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/oct/08/health.lifeandhealth

I realize this is Central America, not the US, but there are those in the US who are pushing a similar agenda.

Bill O also has said that there is no such thing as a situation where a pregnant woman's life is clearly at risk, which a Cesarean couldn't remedy- :shrug:

crazy eh?

[marshall]

250. Isn't a cesarean technically an abortion?

It's just commonly done far enough along for viability.

[undeterred]

138. Your wife didn't have an elective abortion.

She had an urgent abortion, to save her life.

[greengestalt]

142. Escape routes

The rich elite's servants, the politicians, who tend to propose laws like this to get cheap votes from "Good Christians" have a way out.
They simply can afford to pay for regular intensive check ups and will in case of such laws fly to another country/clandestine operation and have whatever necessary procedures done. And they aren't that afraid of scandal anymore, the public is numb for the most part.

[Mad_Dem_X]

144. My God, I cannot imagine

what you must have gone through. Thank you for sharing that story; I'm so glad that your wife is okay and that you were still able to have the children you wanted. :hug:

[butterfly77]

145. K&R..

[Hepburn]

159. Abortion simply is NOT elective surgery and it MUST be covered.

[rd_kent]

164. In what way do you mean?

Most abortions are done because it was the CHOICE of the woman (as it should be) and are not medically necessary. In what way are most abortions NOT elective?

[defendandprotect]

210. Yes, and CHOICE is a "medical procedure" . . .

All abortions are covered in Canada as a "medical procedure."

Whether elective or therapeutic, it's a medical procedure --

Elective simply suggests that it is a non-emergency --

However, for women their CHOICE is based on what is essential to their physical

and psychological well-being --



And, let's remember, that pregnancies due to rape and incest are being suggested here

to be "elective" -- though obviously many of us would recognize them to be NECESSARY.

[rd_kent]

213. you have been reported for stalking and spamming, congrats

and all of your points are wrong anyway.

[defendandprotect]

215. You've responded to my post and I've replied to you -- you're STALKING me . . .

[rd_kent]

241. reported again....

there may be a tombstone in your future....

[demwing]

239. "Pregnancies due to rape and incest are being suggested here to be 'elective' "

By whom? Post a link.

[Bluerthanblue]

163. this happened to my sister- twice, so

I really understand what you are talking about.
The first time she didn't even know she was pregnant and very nearly died.(the tube ruptured and she hemorrhaged internally no one knew what had happened as she was alone when she passed out if the ER Dr.'s not been as quick-thinking she would have died. This happened 27yrs ago, when there weren't as many ectopic pregnancies as there are these days.

Sadly, after trying to become pregnant for a long time she conceived only to get the devastating news that it was indeed another ectopic pregnancy. Her marriage ended not too long after that.

There ARE those assholes who would claim that the surgeries which saved her life were abortions and were against 'gods' plan.
Seems to me an ectopic pregnancy would be against that same 'gods' plan- :shrug:

I'm glad you were there when this happened to your wife and that you guys now have a family.

thank you for posting this-

K&R

[Shell Beau]

230. Actually ectopic pregnancies have always been around in big numbers. It used

to be the number one reason women died during pregnancy. Luckily, with medical advances, they are caught most of the time. I have known 2 different people who were both pregnant with twins. Neither knew it though because one was in the uterus, and the other was in the tube. One was caught early enough (and actually the ectopic pregnancy took care of itself) and the other baby went full term and is a happy kid today, and the other wasn't caught early enough and the tube ruptured, about killed the woman, and the viable pregnancy was lost.

[Bluerthanblue]

243. I'd heard that while the mortality rate had come way down, the incidence

had gone up alot. When my sister experienced her first one ('82) we didn't know anyone who had had one. Since then we've met several people who have gone through this.

I searched for some offical statistics and found this:
http://www.thenewjerseyectopicpregnancycenter.com/incidence_rates.php

Not sure if it's really saying the the incidence has increased, or if more cases are being recognized.

It's a frightening, sad experience. How fortunate for the woman who was able to carry her remaining twin to term. I wish no one had to go through this.

:hi:

[Shell Beau]

245. Me too. I had 2 of them, and they were both terribly scary, but luckily

I caught both of mine before my tube ruptured.

[Bluerthanblue]

247. geez...

I'm glad you are ok.
:hug:

I wish you the best~
blu

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

165. Been there

Almost the same thing happened with one of our pregnancies. 3 beautiful kids all DEMS.

Sorry and ashamed that Stu"pecker" is from my state, though far away from us.

No excuse but the U.P. (upper peninsula) in Mi. is an anomaly. Gonna get flamed on this comment.

[myrna minx]

168. K&R n.t

[PatrynXX]

171. Wonder what those Republican women who are complaining about mamogrames (sp)

would say about this? Nothing of course.

Mostly because at least the two I've seen raising their eyebrows on breast cancer and the Bush appointed panel that raised hell a few weeks ago.. lack either a brain or like Dick Cheney might suffer from dementia.

Do feel sorry that anybody had to be sacrificed for the living, but some Right wing fruits seem to think it's better that children live life without a mother than abort something that's going to kill the mother and maybe it might live and maybe it won't and then there'd be 2 less children in the world. Your story should be pushed out more often. Really hate the notion that somehow the mother is heartless when they have an abortion.


Even the other side of the coin. Can one afford being pregnant? There's absolutely no incentive to have a mother carry it to term. They simply want to pull funding. Thats cold heartless and eventually will lead to economic ruin when people go bankrupt, get arrested or die from the law. What could is a dead mother who might be the money maker in the family?

I'm not entirely sure if other's sent this to various media's, but I forwarded this link to Rachel. Not always certain Keith reads his because they tend to bounce back at me. not sure if he has a twitter acct. rachel does.

I'd love to keep this in my head, but I've got ADD and OCD (the latter was a pre existing condition so that knocked all mental health coverage off good ol Wellmark, which I guess made mistakes paying claims and is demanding some money back in 15 days. ) But it's silly seeing some of the Reps on the right claim they wouldn't be here without a mammogram, but turn the other cheek on abortion. Maybe you should send this story to them.

[defendandprotect]

200. All abortion should be covered as "medical procedure" . . .

and if birth control fails women to the degree where Plan B has to be abortion,

then so be it --

In Japan, as I recall, abortion is recognized as birth control --

NOT something that any women would prefer, of course -- but it acknowledges the reality

that contraception isn't fool proof --

and too often not user friendly --

However an unwanted pregnancy is arrived at, abortion is Plan B --

[Honeycombe8]

173. Some abortions are medically necessary. Some are not. Do govt funds can pay for the ones

that are medically necessary?

[DeSwiss]

190. K&R!!!

- Thank you for sharing this.

[pasto76]

193. word! FUCK THEM!

so glad to hear of her recovery and your two sons!

SGT PASTO

[LBWBlue]

204. Thank you

I read DU all the time but never post, but I just had to say thank you for posting your message.

[Shell Beau]

221. I have had 2 ectopic pregnancies myself. Both were caught

early enough because I am paranoid I guess. I knew something was wrong even though all my symptoms were normal pregnancy symptoms. Both times I received a methotrexate shot which causes an abortion. Both times I would have most certainly either died or had a ruptured tube like your wife did. VERY life threatening. Thankfully, you were there for your wife. Later on, I did have my tube removed, and now I am the mother of the most precious baby on the planet. It is a scary thought that someone else can decide the fate of a pregnant woman. Scary indeed.

[demwing]

238. That's not "Elective" and Stupak would not have disallowed it.

Why are you implying otherwise?